§ Resolution reported,
§ 1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 186,400, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 915."
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI propose this afternoon to take the House back to a much quieter subject of Debate than that which troubled us yesterday. At the same time, the question I desire to put before the House, namely, the condition of the aerial forces of our country, is of such importance—
§ Mr. SPEAKERHow can the hon. Gentleman bring that question up on this Vote, which is for the number of men in the Army?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I suggest, with great deference, that on this occasion last year, in certain special circumstances, it was arranged—you, Sir, were not in the Chair, but Mr. Deputy-Speaker:(Mr. Maclean) was in the Chair at the time—that we should debate the whole question of the aerial forces? That was by arrangement between the two parties. I think the Secretary for War will bear me out that that, was the case last year. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman announced a few days ago that, with the assent of the House, he would make a definite statement regarding aerial questions on the Report stage of this Vote.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt could not be done on the Report stage of the Vote for the number of men; it must be taken on the Vote for pay. I cannot take it on this Vote.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I, with great humility, suggest to you, Sir, that the question of men must necessarily arise in regard to the aerial forces? I quite realise it is somewhat difficult for me to 224 dissociate the question of aeroplanes from the question of the men that fly them.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI shall stop any discussion with regard to aeroplanes and hangars, and all the rest of it, and I shall limit the hon. Gentleman strictly to the number of men on this the Report stage. The same limitation does not apply on the Committee stage. Discussion on the Report stage must be confined to the particular matter reported to the House. I will give the hon. Member an effective opportunity on Vote 1 if he can restrain his impatience until then.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI can restrain my impatience. I was under the impression that it would be possible to debate anything on the Report stage of this Vote. However, I will not trouble the House on this Vote, but will wait until the. second Vote comes up.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI should like to ask you, Sir, whether it. is possible on this Vote for men and officers to discuss the question of the recent mutiny among officers in the Curragh. I imagine it is a subject which is germane to the question of the number of men we need in the Service if a certain number of officers can arrogate to themselves the right to say whether they will perform their duties or not.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat seems to be much more relevant to Vote I, which is the Vote for pay. The only question before us now is what is to be the size of the British Army. When we get to Vote I, which is the Vote for pay of the men and officers, any matters connected with discipline and the position of the officers or men will be strictly relevant.
§ Sir WALTER ESSEXCannot the question be raised by moving a reduction of the Army?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf a reduction were moved I should keep hon. Members strictly to the reduction, and I think they would find it very difficult to raise the point they wish to raise, whereas it would be quite easy to do so on the next Vote.
§ Mr. J. WARDShould I be in order if I moved the reduction of the number of men by the four mutineers?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that would be a convenient way of raising the question which the hon. Member wishes to raise. If he will only wait five minutes or so he will have an opportunity of raising the question.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYThe number of men we are now asked to Vote is 186,500. As a matter of fact, the actual strength is only 178,000. That is a very serious shortage, following, as it does, upon a great reduction in the strength of the Army. In 1905–6 the actual strength of the Army was 221,500, so that during the short period of eight years there has been a reduction in the strength of the Army from 221,000 to 178,000. That is a matter which requires explanation. I do not think it would be in order for me to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the 221,000 men in 1905-6 actually cost £400,000 a year less than the 178,000 will cost, therefore I will not pursue that subject. I will ask the Secretary for War two questions: First, whether the number of 186,500 men, even if we had them up to strength, is not too small a force to maintain for the safety of the Empire at the present moment? And, secondly, whether he can give us any information as to the prospects of getting the force up to that strength, what are the prospects of obtaining the necessary recruits to make up the difference between 178,000 and 186,500? This is a very important question, because, if we cannot keep up the Army to the strength we are asked to provide, we shall find ourselves in a very serious position. I should also like to ask a question in regard to the Brigade of Guards. The Brigade of Guards is the cheapest force in existence on account of the fact that the men serve only for three years and then go into the Reserve, so that the Reserve accumulates much more quickly than the Reserve in the other parts of the Service. Unless I am misinformed, the strength of the Brigade of Guards has been reduced considerably during the last year or two. That seems to be a step in t he wrong direction. I remember the late Sir Charles Dilke stating in this House that the Brigade of Guards were very efficient. Everyone will admit that they are certainly as efficient as any branch of the Service, and that they are also a cheaper branch of the Service by reason of their maintaining at less expense a larger Reserve. It seems to be bad policy on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, whose predecessor took away one battalion from the Scots Guards, to keep the strength of the different battalions at the low figure at which it stands at the present moment. I shall be pleased if the right hon. Gentleman will give me satisfactory answers to these questions.
§ Colonel YATEI should like to raise the question of the number of men in the Artillery. Last year, if I remember aright, the right hon. Gentleman reduced it by something like 1,000 men, for two Horse Artillery batteries and six field batteries were reduced last year. Everyone will realise that the question of the reduction of the Artillery is most vital to the Army at large. The right hon. Gentleman, who was at this time last year the Member for Leith Burghs on the Ministerial side of the House, stated as his opinion:—
That this House ought to be very jealous of allowing any diminution in the strength of the Artillery.I myself have raised the question at various times and asked what is the proportion of guns we have to one thousand men in comparison with the proportion of guns to one thousand men in foreign armies. I must confess 1 have never been able to get any proper reply from the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. He has given me numbers showing that in the German Army they have 6.1 guns per thousand men, whereas we have only 5.94 guns in our Expeditionary Force. All will acknowledge that in a very small Army like ours we ought to be especially strong in Artillery—more so than is necessary for other armies. This question of the reduction is such a serious one that I should like to ask the Secretary for War if he will give us a definite statement by the General Officers Commanding the six Divisions of our Expeditionary Force as to whether they consider the proportion of guns to one thousand men that we possess is sufficient for their purposes, or whether they think they ought to have more. The right hon. Gentleman has given us the opinion of his military experts, but we never know who those experts are. The General Officers who are in command of the six Divisions are the men who will really know.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not think that point is relevant to the question of the number of men. The point the hon. and gallant Member is now making is that there ought to be more guns. That is a point which ought to be raised on the Armaments Vote.
§ Colonel YATEThe question is as to the number of men to man the guns. We cannot have the guns without the men to man them. I was raising the question of the number of men for the Artillery. I should like to refer to the question of the Territorial Force on the same subject.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis Vote does not include the Territorial Force at all.
§ Colonel YATEI will rest content with asking the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us a statement on the subject of the Artillery of the Expeditionary Force, and whether he considers the proportion of men sufficient or not?
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI quite agree that it is more convenient to raise the point as to the action of the Brigadier-General on the Vote for pay, but I want it made quite clear that if we attempt to discuss the matter on Vote 1 we shall not be met with the statement that it does not come on that Vote either. I do not profess to have any special acquaintance with the Army Estimates, but in the brief time that has been allowed I have glanced through the Votes under the second heading, but I cannot quite find how we are to raise the matter. It. may be we can. All I want is a perfect understanding that if we let the first Vote go we shall not be met with the statement that it does not arise on the second.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the question of discipline, which is the point, I understand, which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to raise, and which the hon. Member (Mr. John Ward) wishes to raise, would certainly be relevant to Vote 1, namely, the pay of officers and men of the Army.
§ Mr. LEEI should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us whether the shortage of numbers of the Regular Army remains the same as it did at the time of his previous statement or whether there is any improvement in the situation, and particularly whether every possible effort is being made by the War Office to reduce the deficiency, bearing in mind that he informed us on the previous occasion that you could only keep down the Estimates by reducing the number of men. I wish to know, therefore, whether financial considerations are being allowed to weigh at all in the matter of keeping down the number of men. Arising out of that, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what steps he has taken to improve recruiting, and what success his advertising scheme has had, and what has been the cost. If he cannot give us the total cost of the scheme, can he give us any idea of the total cost of the additional men brought in as the result of the new scheme?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)The hon. Gentleman asks whether the fact that the fewer men there are the lower the Estimates has influenced us in not taking steps to get more men. That is not the case. We have taken every possible step that we thought could be taken with advantage to increase the number of men up to the establishment, and our efforts have not been without result. On the question of our saving money deliberately by not making efforts to get men, that is disproved by the action we have taken both with regard to advertisements in the papers as to the advantages of the Army and by other methods we have taken. I cannot state the precise sum which has been spent on the scheme of notifying, through the newspapers in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, the actual facts of the case with regard to the Army. We are not in such a position with regard to the strength of the Army that we need appeal for recruits as though we were in any acute difficulty, for, as I have explained on previous occasions, it would be wrong to put it that way. There is a shortage which ought to be made up, but it is nothing which should lead us to say that the British Army is withering away. I do not wish to go into the debatable point as to how far we lose by having a greater proportion of Reservists, but on mobilisation there will be no shortage at all. The precise cost of the scheme I cannot give. It would be something a little under or a little over £4,000 up to date. But the results have been highly satisfactory if they continue as they have begun. On that it is too early to speak, but there has been a most gratifying increase in the number of recruits obtained both for the Regular Army and for the Special Reserve week by week since we adopted this plan. The other effort we made to increase the number of men is not so immediately apparent, but will have far greater effect if it succeeds, and that is the appointment of a Committee with definite instructions to see whether it would be possible to offer employment to every man of good character on leaving the Colours. I repeat what the House allowed me to say on a previous occasion, that it is on those lines that we must proceed if we are to make the Army as we know it now up to strength, and in every way a success, and part of the population of this country, and comprising all classes of this country. At present there is a large class of people in this country who consider that the prospect of having no 229 further employment debars them from taking service in the Army if they are to be sure of a future in life. What we must see to is that no class of people shall think it unwise to join the Army. High, low, rich and poor, all those who desire to join the Army should see that they have an opportunity of joining it, and of rising in it, and an opportunity of securing a livelihood. That is the policy of the Army Council, and, should the efforts of the Committee be successful, I believe it will make a complete change in the attitude of the great mass of the people towards the Army.
The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) asked me whether the establishment of 186,000 was not too small. It is very hard to say what should be the precise size of the British Army when we consider our world-wide responsibilities. When we consider how much that is interdependent not only with policy, but with the size of the Navy, it is really an impossible question to answer. All I can say to-day, when it would not be proper to enter into a disquisition upon the general policy of this country, how far its armed force available for instant service should be larger or smaller, is that the necessary garrisons in India and the Colonies are maintained up to full strength, and that the Expeditionary Force can be mobilised at shorter notice than ever before up to its full strength, except perhaps for certain unimportant details, for which arrangements have already been made. More than that I cannot now say. I think the hon. Baronet himself will see that on the Report stage of this Vote I could not be expected to go into the large strategic questions which must be involved in any answer to the questions he has put to me. I would suggest that the proper time and the only time at which this question can really be discussed is when we can consider the whole question of defence—the Army and the Navy together. I have reason to believe that an opportunity will be given, and I hope it may be given. I shall represent to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that it should be given to discuss this most vitally important question on some proper occasion, whether on the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence or some more convenient occasion. I have been asked about the Artillery and about the Guards. With regard to the Artillery, the net increase in the whole of the Artillery of all ranks I understand to 230 be 424. Therefore, there is no policy of decreasing the regular Artillery in the Estimates before the House.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is this year?
§ Colonel SEELYThis year. With regard to the Guards, I am informed that apart from the establishment, which remains the same, the Foot Guards are twenty-seven below strength according to the latest returns, and the Household Cavalry-the Horse Guards-are a little above strength. The hon. Baronet may take it from me that there is no serious shortage in the Brigade of Guards at present.
§ Sir F. BANBURYHas not the establishment been reduced?
§ Colonel SEELYNot since last year.
§ Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYWhen the right hon. Gentleman mentions Horse Guards I presume he means the Life Guards and Royal Horse Guards? There is no such regiment as the Horse Guards.
§ Colonel SEELYYes, I used an abbreviation which was sanctioned by ancient usage even before the days when the hon. and gallant Gentleman served in that gallant corps. I used an abbreviation which is hallowed by custom and ancient tradition. In present circumstances I agree the proper definition would be the Household Cavalry, or the First and Second Life Guards and the Blues.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI understand the right hon. Gentleman admits that the establishment of Guards was reduced last year, and that at present the strength is not quite up to the establishment. It is the reduction of the establishment, as well as the strength being below the establishment, to which I alluded.
§ Colonel SEELYI do not know what the hon. Baronet means by the reduction of the Establishment? Does he imply that there has been a reduction of Establishment this year or last year or the year before?
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe right hon. Gentleman stated last year that the Establishment had been reduced.
§ Colonel SEELYThere has been no reduction of any battalion of the Guards.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhat is the strength now of each battalion?
§ Colonel SEELYThe strength, according to the latest Return, is twenty-seven below the Establishment, and if the hon. Baronet will look at the appropriate pages of the Army List he will see exactly what the Establishment is.
§ Colonel SEELYI could not say without notice. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question I will give him the fullest information as to the relative strength and Establishment, showing all ranks, officers, non-commissioned officers and men, where there is a shortage, where there is a surplus, in both the Brigade of Guards and the Household Cavalry.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWas there not some statement in the Memorandum as to the reduction of the Establishment?
§ Colonel SEELYI drafted it myself, and I do not remember any statement of that kind. I cannot find in the Memorandum any reference to the Establishment and strength. I shall be glad to answer any further questions in regard to matters coming under this Vote.
§ Colonel YATEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer my question as to the proportion of guns?
§ Colonel SEELYI have replied to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question as to strength. As to his question about the proportion of guns—
§ Colonel YATEBy guns I also include men.
§ Colonel SEELYI think in the German Army it is 6.1, and in the English Army 5.94. I think that is accurately put, although I do not carry these figures in my head. It is difficult to compare these numbers, because it depends whether you are on a four-gun or a six-gun basis. If the hon. Member asks what the proportion of Artillery ought to be in relation to foreign armies, I reply at once, on general grounds, that certainly I agree with him that if we are a little behind the German Army, I think it will be found that we have not a smaller number of men in proportion. If he will put down a question on that precise point, I will give him a further answer.
232 Question put, and agreed to.